« A prophet is without wifi in his own land | Main | Go go Decepticons! »

June 18, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Scott Leslie

FYI - http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php?title=TheKeenReader

While this page refers more to the Keen attack than on Gorman's, it may still be of interest.

pete naegele

I think, as does the author of the first comment connected to the entry, that the "question for scholars" is irrelevant in that intention has little to do with tendency.

For now, I'll stick to Clay Shirky when it comes to these matters. His analysis of Gorman and Keene [whom he actually defended at a recent Personal Democracy Forum] have a constructive component to them which, as Bryan points out, The Chronicle is lacking.

As he noted:

"So much of the conversation about the social effects of the Internet has been so upbeat that even when there is an obvious catastrophe ... we talk about it amongst ourselves, but not in public."

Bergo

On the note of devaluing academic work - Do academics really care? I recently completed a masters, and I saw a few academic papers during that time. Most Academics (lecturers) use published journals, which are largely unreadable for the masses. Academics write for academics, other people write for whoever their audience is.

peter naegele

@ Bergo.....I, for one, do. How would you feel if your master's was discredited by a blog post by someone who holds no degree in your field?

On wikipedia, it is routine to dismiss entries made by experts because they were made by an expert. Their status is devalued as is their contribution to their field.

Bergo

@Peter Naegle. Just because they don't have a degree doesn't make them wrong.

I know a couple of PhD and Master holders who had papers which were later proven wrong or inaccurate.

But I take your point.

Perhaps I should have been clearer stating that a lot of academics I met throughout my course, did not read blogs and some a few used Wikipedia (a couple even recommended it for some parts of their field). Most lecturers/academics relied on having their work published in reputable peer recognised Journals.

peter naegele

@Bergo:
"I know a couple of PhD and Master holders who had papers which were later proven wrong or inaccurate."

Of course, nd that is the advantage of peer review! If a paper is proven wrong, then so be it. But if it is dismissed BECAUSE it is from a published journal, then there is a problem.

This is just one of the many reasons why most academics despise wikipedia.

Lanny Arvan

Presumably you are for free speech, so is it right to interpret your complaint about the bias in Chronicle reporting really as a critique regarding the information literacy of some Chronicle readers, e.g., Provosts and College Presidents?

Of course you can respond to the Chronicle piece, but if the real problem is an ongoing assault rather than this particular item, might the right response be to find a different way to command those same eyeballs that are now swayed by the Chronicle's reporting? Inside Higher Ed seems to have a regular column called Inside Tech Ethics, though it appears to be dormant now. Perhaps you can revive it and play Shana to the Chronicle's Jim Kilpatrick.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter latest

    follow me on Twitter

    Hypersphere

    Technorati

    Pages

    Become a Fan